As far as the cat is concerned. It is a fact that it is either alive or dead. It doesn't matter what some equation says.
If you want to think of probability you may say that the cat's probability of being either alive or dead is a percent, that is between 0 and 1, but the cat in the end is not a decimal but a living or dead cat.
For those who just have to use the word and, you can say the possibility of the cat being alive and the possibility of the cat being dead are both there.
This really gets under my skin when people try to be clever but end up poorly using a comparison that just doesn't work.

Also if you take a dead cat and put it in a box it will never change to a live cat. It is very definitely a dead cat in a box even if you can't see it.
If you wish to further discuss the theory it is supposed to relate to then please come up with a more appropriate metaphor, this one died.

And if you go back to the double slit experiment I've already hashed that one out too.

Really we should just all be happy that there are a lot of neat things out there that work. You really don't have to understand how they work.

Vachtra wrote:
If scientists are trying to disprove what they think then why do people still believe in time dilation?

Vachtra wrote:
It has been stated that you can't go faster than the speed of light. If time dilation exists then you could in fact not go faster than approximately 70% the speed of light since at this point you would feel you were going, due to time dilation, almost at the speed of light.

Vachtra wrote:
Another point being the claim of what time dilation affects. Consistently it is applied to a moving object saying that relative movement makes the dilation. Since everything is moving, all movement must be accounted for. This is clear when we look at not only two but multiple objects.
If a plane takes off then it should have time dilation affecting it relative to the earth. If a passenger then jumps out of said plane he would have time dilation relative to the plane which is relative to the earth. This would only increase dilations by compounding them. Even after the person landed on the ground his dilation would be from the point he accelerated from the plane. Do this enough times and the man would be dilated so much he would be out of sync with society. This sounds ridiculous I know but that's because it is. This is the model we're presented with though, they just haven't drawn it out to it's logical conclusion.

(...)

Vachtra wrote:

pixelfck wrote:
Then how do you explain the results of two atomic clocks, being confirmed to run at the exact same speed, where one was taken on a fast flying air plane. When the plane returned, the clock that took to the skies was slower by exactly the amount Einstein's equations predicted?

This is because his predictions were good calculations but not about time. They are applicable to the movement of electromagnetic signals.
These clocks were tested on the ground and on the ground they work exactly the same. When one was sped up it was being flown through earth's magnetic field and thus altered it's reliability.

Vachtra wrote:

pixelfck wrote:
Then how do you explain the results of two atomic clocks, being confirmed to run at the exact same speed, where one was placed 33 cm above the other. Where the clock placed further away from the ground runs faster than the one placed closer to the ground? (Again, by exactly the amount Einstein's equations predicted) as measured by NIST and described in the Sept. 24, 2010 issue of Science?

Again it isn't time that is changing, merely the instrument. The calculations are still valid but in reference to the signals being observed.

A second is not really defined by a clock. A clock measures it's own movement and time can then be estimated by the observation.
A second is 1/86400 of an average day. We just do our best to track it.

Vachtra wrote:And yeah, this is where I usually loose people.

Thanks for showing us that your scientific theories are just a bag of bullshit. You claim that Einstein didn't really know what he was talking about nor the people at NIST, publishing their results in one of the most respected scientific journals. You claim they are wrong and you understand it better, yet fail to provide any proof (or even argumentation) for your point of view. In short, your theories make about as much sense as claiming that the Earth is flat and the sun is circling around it.

On a side note, pigs have the natural ability to fly, but they only choose to do so when people are not looking.

pixelfck wrote:Thanks for showing us that your scientific theories are just a bag of bullshit. You claim that Einstein didn't really know what he was talking about nor the people at NIST, publishing their results in one of the most respected scientific journals. You claim they are wrong and you understand it better, yet fail to provide any proof (or even argumentation) for your point of view. In short, your theories make about as much sense as claiming that the Earth is flat and the sun is circling around it.

No!
The problem is NOT that he's challenging the orthodoxy or saying that Einstein and the rooms of physicists were wrong! That's (while probably rather pointless) a noble thing to do. He actually has provided argumentation for his point.

What IS a problem is that he's done the equivalent of "If evolution were true then how come we don't see monkeys turning into humans?", "If universal gravitation were true then the Earth would crash into the sun." or "Democrats want only criminals to have guns.". It reveals not only a lack of knowledge of what the thing you're criticizing actually says, it also reveals that you haven't even tried to understand! That you haven't even done the basic research to see what people actually believe.

If Vachtra had actually learnt Special Relativity and done the maths on his plane scenario, he'd have realized that SR does not in fact predict that kind of desync. Him actually thinking that QM says you can put a dead cat in a box and get out a live one just leaves me shaking my head.

Vachtra wrote:If you wish to further discuss the theory it is supposed to relate to then please come up with a more appropriate metaphor, this one died.

You know the reason it's a poor metaphor? It's because cats are macroscopic objects where all the weirdness that comes from stuff not actually being made of anything that has a macroscopic analogue (there is no analogue to wave functions) is negligible.
If by some preposterous means you were able to set up an experiment the cat would indeed only ever experience being alive or being dead.

Last edited by Transcendi on Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

there is no need for animosity. we can discuss this like proper adults.
But it looks like we are still thiking with common sense and not with quantum mechanics.

Since the poor cat is dead, let's take another cat and try a different ludicrous experiment.

Take the cat and build a box with bricks, no windows or doors. Trap the cat.
If the cat is a quantum cat, then the cat is both inside and outside the brick wall.
Look outside and you will see the cat.
Break the wall and look inside and you will see the cat.

Both states are true and you can observe the cat both inside and outside, the cat is effectively in 2 places at the same time with fractional probability until you make the observation. However, since when you do the observation you can find the cat both inside and outside, then you can simply state that "the cat is inside AND outside at the same time"

There is no common sense in that, that's simply how nature works at quantum scale. (This is called quantum tunneling btw)

Vachtra wrote:Are you saying that whey you make the observation that you find the cat inside and with the exact same observation you find the cat outside?

Sortof but no.
For a complete answer I refer you to the MIT OCW (yes, maths is involved, but not particularly complicated maths). Don't try wikipedia or anything pop-sci or anything that tries to explain without maths.

What can be true is a statement of observation. "At any given time it is possible to see the cat either inside or outside the box." Saying that you can't observe both at the same time makes this obvious.

It may be me but this seems to be the basis for anything else that is trying to be said. If not is there something else that may help with explanations.

I looked up tunneling just to make sure I remembered what I believe it is saying. The results of the experiments and calculations don't sound like tunneling at all but rather a transference of energy much the same way a pool ball or metronome balls transfer energy. The energy transferred through the object, which is really just a large mass of whatever is shot at it, absorbs part of the impact and reflects part of the impact dividing the total energy as it sends the absorbed energy to the other side releasing a particle. The thicker the object the less energy can get through due to the ability to retain or reflect the energy. Still looks a lot like regular physics.

Vachtra wrote:I looked up tunneling just to make sure I remembered what I believe it is saying. The results of the experiments and calculations don't sound like tunneling at all but rather a transference of energy much the same way a pool ball or metronome balls transfer energy. The energy transferred through the object, which is really just a large mass of whatever is shot at it, absorbs part of the impact and reflects part of the impact dividing the total energy as it sends the absorbed energy to the other side releasing a particle. The thicker the object the less energy can get through due to the ability to retain or reflect the energy. Still looks a lot like regular physics.

And here's where your general ignorance raises its head again.

Photon absorption and emission don't work like that. Tunneling is efficient. Any competing explanation is not. Frankly you should know better from high school chemistry, much less particle physics.

It was merely a comparison. I wasn't implying efficiency. Your all embracing sweeping statement merely verifies you won't even consider the idea.
The question wouldn't be is that how it works but why is it so efficient. A compact signal cluster would account for not only the speed at which it travels but also the efficient transfer, much the same way sound transfers through wood faster than air.
Knock a 40' hard plank on the end and the sound on the other side is just about as clear as if you were standing right by where the hammer hit it and at nearly the same time, divided energy. You can also feel the impact if you put your hand near ( I wouldn't suggest on) the end.

You haven't actually proposed an idea. You need to actually show what the results of your theory would be (rather than barely being more precise than "What if magic was real?"). I bet that once you do the maths and discover what your theory predicts you'll find the predicted observations do not pan out.
But by all means prove everyone wrong and tell us the details of your theory and how it's predictions differ from tunnelling.

It's interesting that you think that my suggestions of why experiments that actually work do in fact work would not support the experiment that actually works.
I am not suggesting that there is a problem with the experiment, just that the framework that has been built to explain it doesn't seem to be very good. Also for me to come up with an entire explanation for why everything that has been done works would be impossible. It's taken thousands of people building on the one you are trying to defend a really long time to come up with what you have. It's just that they've had to come up with some pretty wild assumptions to get there.

In the end it can still be, although not by anyone who has the least hope of being taken seriously, considered fiction. And, as is the case with any work of fiction, possible to rationalize any part that doesn't work by making something up that sounds like it would bridge the gap. In fact there are many people who have built elaborate fictional frameworks that will stand on their own even against mathematical scrutiny.

For those who don't already disregard anything I'm saying just because I'm saying it have fun reading this thread. It really is enlightening.

As a final note. Do the calculations for accelerating a space ship at a rate of 5mph/second to the point of light speed from the viewpoint of someone on the ground. Give it whatever weight you like.
After you figure out the energy needed then recalculate it from the standpoint of those in the ship but calculate until the speed hits light speed for those on the ground. Assume that time dilation exists. Also assume the ship is not being torn apart by asteroids or other particles it's colliding with.
Here's a helpful hint. The mass is not increasing and the energy used for acceleration is on the ship and is not decreasing in mass either (for calculation sake). This is a simple how long does it take and now much energy is needed question.
Since we know there are objects going faster than light already this is not anything new. The claim that the universe is what is expanding and not the galaxies is a cop out. The galaxies themselves are traveling at this rate but they are not in conflict with anything around them which is why they don't seem to be having any problem. Think of it like pizza dough, ever stretching but still connected. Light from them will continue to reach us since it's shifting from field to field, otherwise we wouldn't see them now.

The quantities are not the same. Those on the ship would never seem to get there and those on the ground would see it at about 21 years if the fuel didn't run out. Of course at that point it would be another 10.5 years before they "saw" it. It would be another 21 years before they hit twice the speed of light. Since those on the ship don't seem to be able to get there at all is the reason people think the speed of light is unbreakable, although it already has been broken. To reason around this they claim time dilation, but since this speed has been broken then time dilation can't exist.

Last edited by Vachtra on Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The reason why the people in the ship cannot ever sense that they reach the speed of light, is time dilation. Yet you would use the fact that the ship people cannot feel the speed of light to disprove time dilation?

I just removed the spoiler tags. I'll look into how it's supposed to work later.

As far as those on the ship, if time dilation did work as you say they would believe they were going much faster than light far before they reached it to an observer on the ground. In fact as they approached light speed their perceived speed would approach infinity. So saying you can't break the speed of light no matter the frame of reference means you actually can't go faster than about 70% of the speed of light since the perception on the ship would be light speed, while on earth it would be about 70% of that.
I just keep repeating myself here.
Ooh, another thought. Since there seems to be a belief that time can dilate the other direction as well with gravity, then depending on the reference frame any movement is going faster than light already.

edit:
What you all are probably trying to get at is that, to an object in any given location, light will hit it at c (the speed of light). This can more accurately be said that it is approximate since not only can there be some interference but that c is approximate in the first place. This does not mean that the instant before it hits that the speed is the same as when it hits it since the fields do not have to be moving at the same rate. This also has nothing to do with time itself but rather the varying influence of objects on the transfer of light waves. The waves are in fact the interference of the field around all objects. the strength and reach of the field of each object being different and thus affecting the waves to varying degrees. Only in this way can you reliably and with common sense understand what is happening with the speed of objects and the influences they have on light without thinking that time itself is being altered.
These fields can also be used to explain tunneling, double split experiment and the atomic clock experiments as well as a whole host of other things that have been brought up.